Jameshow
Established Member
https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/29526240...tixoXeJTeO&var=&widget_ver=artemis&media=COPY
£23 gotta be worth a punt!!
£23 gotta be worth a punt!!
Quangsheng No.62 low angle vs No.5 vs No.5 1/2?
- Thread starter Joe1975
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
If you mean the article, I wrote the text for it because I posted a whole bunch about using cap irons shortly before the K&K video came out. It got no traction, and then when Bill T and Steve dug up the video, suddenly the Chris Schwartzs of the world started wanting to be the expert on it and people were saying all kinds of nonsense, like making shims to set the cap iron, and some other self appointed experts wanted to describe a week after they picked it up what it would or wouldn't do (let's call it having trouble of letting go of advice on buying a bunch of varying bed angle tools or maybe just not being very good at first at setting the cap).
I rushed to write the core part of the article so that it would be out before Chris Schwartz and other "I'll try this once and write a book about it" guys started polluting everything
Here's the part that I didn't notice - Ellis was the editor of the article. He wanted to include credit for everyone in it. I wanted to include credit for Steve and Bill digging the video up and getting actual rights from a university in Japan to show it. I also wanted to use the video as proof that it works because before it came along, I posted that I was wrong about high angle planes, described setting the cap iron and it didn't get very far (warren noticed it, though - when he came to my shop earlier this year, he asked if I still had the millers falls 9 that I posted about).
What ended up happening with the article is it got twisted to make it out like the cap iron is learned by watching the video and thus based on it. I asked ellis to plane further on the picture that he made of mahogany, because I figured it might get read a few thousand times and internet cranks would focus on it. Ellis was delighted that he could basically read the article while editing it and get that far ahead of where he'd been without it, so I let it slide. I either let the last part of the article slide about the substance being based on the video or I didn't read it at all in one of the levels of edit.
So for a decade now, I've been wondering why people tell me "you learned to use the cap iron from the video" when the timeline is available in the WC archives *if one could actually find it*. Warren is a master at searching the archives - I find them difficult to navigate.
There'd be no difference in what I'm doing or what you're doing had the video not existed, it just catches the 95% who really aren't going to read or try anything, but will see the video and say "there, it works!".
The trouble with it is the next step is "there, it says 80 degrees, and 8 thousandths, so now we need to make a jig to set the cap".
(I don't have the millers falls 9. I was argumentative before that article, too, because it seems like people won't really tell you much of what they know until you get the flow going in a productive spat - far different than unproductive. Ellis made the article writing more work than I really wanted to by continuing to edit for readability, but I'm sure that helped it. I made a mistake being agreeable about points - one I wouldn't make again. It would have no mention other than Steve and Bill T, either - I was impressed that they would bother to go find something that neither even uses, and figure out how to converse with professors who don't speak english. It's not like it took them a day or a week to find that. )
It could probably be made usable, but if it's not right out of the box, you might regret it.
What does a stanley 5 1/2 or 6 cost outright on ebay based on recent completed sales? 50 pounds?
Here's one thing that seems to come up over and over. If you don't want to work entirely by hand, that's fine. If I post about working entirely by hand, it always seems to bring up the idea that you can't make enough with it and people either get defensive or they're lobbying for their case - like consensus building.
In the last 10 years, I've burned through about 2000 board feet of wood, I've made somewhere around 100 planes, 150 chisels, 10 guitars, 100 plane irons and 20 knives and redid my kitchen (With some of that 2000 board feet of wood) and more than half of it was hand dimensioned only). Derek for some reason likes to tout that I'm not making anything, or in his words, he referred to me as a reenactor and then at another time "i make simple things, derek makes complicated things".
I've bit my lip for years as in my opinion, there is an enormous divide between the work that's on the andersen and stauffer page and derek's. Derek executes joints. If you asked what I thought about it, I would say it looks like a display of joints, but often it's flat and blocky or there's a strange and unappealing mix of curves and straight parts and things that look undone. The round faced chest is overly round on the front and then abruptly flat on the sides and back and with thick exposed dovetails showing at the top. It's begging for something that goes beyond just how fast can you get the flat work through a machine and "you couldn't do it by hand".
I could be wrong, but I think one working entirely by hand would struggle to be stuck there because you would have more time and more freedom in how you would lay things out and maybe you'd never get to andersen and stauffer even after 30 years, but you would sure be drawn into more like it and want to get there.
When I first learned to do dovetails, I wanted to leave them exposed, but it didn't last long. I couldn't tolerate the aesthetic.
Look at the mouldings on this chest:
https://www.andersenandstauffer.com/highchests-marshall-high-chest.php
AT first, you may find this level of detail overdone or stodgy - I did. I fell into the "I really like shaker furniture" bits to start and thought some of the other later machine stuff was interesting. I don't know what happened to my eye over time. If my eyes and brain are good enough, I'll give this stuff a shot in about 10 years when I retire. I think at some point, you start noticing proportions and asking questions - like why does the round faced chest look awkward when you get past the initial part of it's neatly executed - because if you're going to make the same thing, you have more than just the obligation of executing - you owe it to yourself to make it look as nice as possible, and that very well can and almost always will be making mouldings or hiding joints and focusing more on general lines and not breaking classical design rules, like having curves and flat areas meet abruptly.
I made less stuff when I had a mostly power tool shop, and a good friend of mine who has a power tool shop to die for makes about 1/4th the volume that I do. It's not the lack of tools, it's that he won't be drawn to the shop.
I'm interested in building by hand. You may not be, and you shouldn't feel like you're obligated to lobby or defend against the idea that someone else can.
If I built only furniture, I'd have either gone into the weeds trying to move up the chain to stuff like the A&S pages of wares, or I'd have blown through so much wood that I wouldn't have a place to put the furniture. That's already I problem - there is no more space in my house to put furniture in the upstairs without taking others out, and that seems like running around a track.
I doubt that power tool or not makes much of a difference on the A&S stuff. If you had some friends who wanted you to make 10 square nightstands with dovetail joints, all much the same with all flat bits, I could see it making a big difference, but with most folks like that (at least like many here, including my wife's friends who often say "would you make a piece of furniture for us?", if it were connected underneath with kreg jig screws, they wouldn't notice the difference or care. I always decline making furniture for anyone who asks. I will often make tools and give them away or sell them for the cost of materials.
What I don't do is take pictures of every single project - I think it's kind of pointless. I don't have videos about making guitars, though I think I could probably make decent ones if I had to now. There's plenty of that out there already. What isn't out there with much accuracy is how to use hand tools if that's all you want to use.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Derek Cohen (Perth Oz)
Established Member
Just noticed this. So you want to compare me to professionals who make high end reproduction furniture? Why not compare me to the genre I cover - contemporary. Still, I am not sure whether to be impressed or consider you twisted since I consider myself just an amateur.
Regards from Perth
Derek
What because your quality of work is just too good for them?
I think you need the practice - put your money where your mouth is!
Because it's pointless to make furniture for people who don't really appreciate furniture. The case is usually wanting something that could be found used and repaired, with the idea "you're already woodworking, so just make something for me".
All you have to do is give a ballpark figure for stock costs and it usually causes pause. What is the stock cost for a nice chest of drawers in all solid? $600.
I don't know why you wouldn't be familiar with this - it looks like you attempted to make plain furniture at the end of your run and gave up on it. Imagine if your market was limited then to just your friends.
There are things I can do well enough that I don't have to waste my time with that, and the offer to help them buy and restore something usually doesn't get taken up because that involves effort on their part. I would help with that. Makes little sense for me to make furniture for people who don't like it that much who think $600 is sort of being put out as a "friend" ("couldn't you make it cheaper? that seems like a lot") when there's often something suitable on FB or craigslist for $100 that needs very little.
I will make tools for professionals at this point, but that's about it. I've started to get introduction to fine furniture makers who want something unusual because they saw tools I made for someone else.
---------------------------------------
Separately - I hope someone tracks down something in old texts (before 1900) about match planing or bookmatching pieces to see how far off you are. I haven't read about the process, but vaguely recall Warren Mickley saying "we would join the wood first and do the rest of the steps later". What you relayed is something power tool folks would want to follow - it's a waste of time and effort to do ahead of time and the age old "you have to see which way the grain goes" thing is another power tooler's folly. You pick boards on aesthetics, which if they are well matched, can usually be done without facing anything, and you join the edges from rough. I think that whole process and how little there was too it went right over your head, all the way down to why you'd tolerate a little extra resistance from the cap iron to make sure the joint was invisible from top to bottom and end to end.
This stuff is a lot like golf. I played golf when I was young - kind of lost the taste for it as a time waster. There are a lot of armchair experts at golf who talk about how it's really simple for the better players, and this or that. And a lot of people have played mini golf and gone to the driving range, so they also become self appointed experts and they know if they just played a little more, they could be a +2. Except when you go and play with the guys who "make everything look simple" and you start asking for their thoughts in various spots and various shots, you find out some things matter that you didn't think did - and maybe a whole lot, and others are off base.
I could never tell for sure which one of those Warren was. I've seen some of his work now, and I've seen some of his shop - he is a finer worker than he lets on, and he does exactly what he says and works in a shop that's exactly what he says it is. I regret giving him some grief for not showing more proof, but have always been a little wary because even though he doesn't disclose much, I usually find out what he says is true - the burden is to figure it out.
If you ask me my honest opinion about what I gather from you? I think you started using hand tools a little bit when you retired, maybe you did when you started, but I don't think you ever did much of this stuff entirely by hand - maybe not any. I think it's a shame for the folks who pop by here who have an honest question to ask and assume that the assertion of experience is the same as actual experience. There are George Wilsons and Warren Mickley and Custards around, but they never seem to stay on the forums.
The reason for the jointing video is simple - I made the comment that you can join two boards as cleanly as you'll find anywhere without resorting to a bunch of checking and in the process of jointing the edges. It shows that. It seems to be over the head of a lot of armchair experts. It's kind of a shame because everyone here could do the same thing and people just starting out could be at this point within a couple of months and actually get past a lot of this. But if they start facing boards and planing edges needlessly, and trying to sort things like grain direction instead of aesthetics, they're doomed from the start.
Hornbeam
Established Member
I have come to the view that this post has become one person trying to justify their views and getting quite personal
Regarding the original question, I stay with the 5 1/2
Regarding understanding the real differences, the only real way of finding out would be an reasonable trial period with all to compare. I suspect that quite a few have done this and come to our own conclusions. I do not see how anybody who hasnt used all 3 can make a reasonable comparison
Out
Regarding the original question, I stay with the 5 1/2
Regarding understanding the real differences, the only real way of finding out would be an reasonable trial period with all to compare. I suspect that quite a few have done this and come to our own conclusions. I do not see how anybody who hasnt used all 3 can make a reasonable comparison
Out
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
The Bloviator strikes back!
The mistake you made is to join the boards before you planed them. Your way just makes the job much more difficult.
You just need more practice - and if you made some bits of furniture instead of typing frantically all day, you might find somebody who wants to buy them instead of dismissing them all as tasteless idiots - a very feeble excuse!
Last edited:
This is the first time I've probably ever said that. I do like furniture design because it's not really just furniture design - it actually appears in the tools at the time, too. The classical design rules are kind of important because they aren't just rules that apply to furniture or tools or whatever else. They'll even help you figure out why when you look at some guitars, they look funny, and why some - even plain ones (like a fender stratocaster or a les paul) don't look funny, even though the strat itself is very plain.
The reason neither of those fairly basic guitars look funny is because fender and gibson both hired or staffed designers to make sure they didn't violate simple things that make for awkwardness. There are later 70s and 80s cut budget designs in the US that look really dated now, and probably looked odd at the time, but maybe edgy. It turns out, they weren't professionally designed and some of the straight lines melding with curves were early attempts at making everything on CNC. They are technically just as good as a gibson les paul, but I would've and did - think they didn't look as good but didn't know why back when I was playing a lot of guitar and not building anything. Knowing why they don't look right helps avoid sinking time into making something like them as well as possible only to have it look awkward.
Design doesn't have to be fancy. This is one of the things that doesn't get talked about much, and it's why some of derek's tool handles look funny and mine don't. It's a missed opportunity. We all seem to miss it because any time someone critiques design on a forum, the experienced folks shy away knowing that there will be a flood of "yeah, well design is all opinion, so your opinion is just arrogant!".
Rob cosman's furniture shows the same issues -it's very tidy but blocky and with weird proportions. Those are things that shouldn't bother anyone early on, but we should have our eye on them from the start. You can't just make perfect furniture in every aspect in the first three months, but I remember Warren making a point on another forum that I found kind of difficult (because it seems like a burden), in that an apprentice in the 18th century would be fed a big dose on design while they were learning fundamental competence in using the tools. We seem to have fallen into a trap where we think "first you get really good at the dovetails, then you get really good at mortise and tenon, and ...." and way later, we'll see if the proportions are striking because that seems too nebulous and it's sometimes arduous to think through, and even worse, it often forces making something a second time to improve the aesthetic bits that didn't turn out that great the first time.
It's largely excluded from forum discussions because there is no separate place where people will have thick enough skin to soak in design criticism, and because sometimes you make something where design isn't the focus because it's not supposed to be an heirloom piece and if you even so much as say that out loud, it causes peoples' oppositional nature to be "well, you mentioned design. You still could've made the design better by ___________"
I cannot design things without stealing elements, but I had a couple of saw handles that looked a little off early on, and plane eyes, and other things, and luckily, George Wilson will more or less give you free advice if you'll swallow pride and take it. Not having curves and straight lines crash together is one of those things.
I think it's fair to say also that a lot of people on forums don't really want to be burdened with chasing anything in the first place - sometimes a hobby is just what golf is to me at this point. I'll play it. I have no interest in making getting better at it a focus - but I guess it's also fair to say, I have no interest in getting online and talking about it either, and there's probably a lot of people doing it.
I haven't seen evidence that many people have made an effort in earnest working by hand.
I've said elsewhere on here, I think probably 5% of people might like to do it and find it more rewarding, and some people who get bored with making would find working by hand interesting enough that they wouldn't just build a big nest of a power tool shop and not go in it.
Getting coarse, fine and whatever the text that Chris Schwarz wrote (or DVD) or learning to plane from paul sellers isn't an earnest effort at working by hand.
The forums are pretty devoid of it and you can't make any real progress into it, all the way down to sharpening saws. How long does it take to sharpen a saw? A couple of minutes.
"You have to joint the edge or the teeth will get out of place!"
No, they won't.
I have seen only two people talking about making things by hand who actually discuss this kind of thing. I thought it was reenacting at first. No part of anything that I said here or anywhere else is "the other 95% should move into the 5%, too". It seems more like a bunch of people who don't know what they're talking about find comfort in being in the 95% because they can build consensus, and make sure that if someone else would like to do the 5% path, they can find more support for why it's "insanity" (charlesworth's words).
Any actual critical discussion can be dismissed as someone just being difficult for no reason then, and everyone misses an opportunity to pull something useful out.
I started all power tools, so it's not like I've got no experience with it. I do have a lot of experience with finding little clear cut anything when realizing that I liked working by hand better. Where my path diverged was just at the point where I was going to go one of three ways:
1) spend about $20k on power tools to level up (which wouldn't have been a big deal, but the space and work to set everything up and get dust collection in place would not have been minimal work)
2) quit woodworking and do something else
3) give it a shot working by hand - but starting from the wrong place assuming it was the right one
I slowly chose 3.
I don't expect this to ever really be a forum thing, either - people don't do it, people won't do it, but everyone's sure they know about it without doing it. The level of woodwork on the forums used to be more varied - lots of beginners and some fine woodworkers. The fine workers are gone and what remains is a more concentrated manufactured alternate reality of hobby woodworking - everyone "does it like this" and few people show their work - especially in this section.
Guaranteed for sure that if you talk about aspects of tool making on a hand tools forum, someone who is self appointed and maybe not getting as much attention with their posts as they want will complain about it, too. The aspects of making hand tools being off limits in hand tool forums is really an odd concept, especially in subtopics going nowhere. This forum has declined in the HT side, but the general woodworking and "what did you make today" remains strong. The forum where the cap iron discussion bloomed out of is essentially dead, and the blue forum in the US has gone backwards and the owner likes it that way because it's good for the forum.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Trying to be helpful here D_W.
Why don't you have a go at making some furniture? Lots of people on here doing it and you'd get loads of advice. You seem keen but you are getting left behind. It's never too late to start!
Have to comment on your vid; it says nothing which couldn't be said in one sentence.
This is the sentence:
"To thickness a piece of wood, plane one side flat, mark the desired thickness around with a marking gauge, and plane the other side down to the line."
Takes a few seconds to read that and doesn't need a half hour vid with somebody rambling on incoherently in the background.
I'd also suggest another credibility move; give up the search for the steel of excalibur! I think it's gone the way of your unicorn sharpening method.
A good furniture starter is the nice little Chris Schwarz shaker table, which everybody else seems to have made. I've actually sold a few myself. It's a good exercise and being small doesn't risk spoiling much wood. You could do it entirely by hand, no prob. You can probably find the design on line - it started life as an article in his magazine, some years back.
Your wife's friends would probably buy one each!
PS here it is: https://www.popularwoodworking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/HiRes-SEPT2004-Seg2.pdf
PPS and please don't bother replying to this with the usual 5 posts of 1000 words each.
Just do some woodwork and tell us (briefly) how you are getting on!
Looking forwards to the WIP!
Why don't you have a go at making some furniture? Lots of people on here doing it and you'd get loads of advice. You seem keen but you are getting left behind. It's never too late to start!
Have to comment on your vid; it says nothing which couldn't be said in one sentence.
This is the sentence:
"To thickness a piece of wood, plane one side flat, mark the desired thickness around with a marking gauge, and plane the other side down to the line."
Takes a few seconds to read that and doesn't need a half hour vid with somebody rambling on incoherently in the background.
I'd also suggest another credibility move; give up the search for the steel of excalibur! I think it's gone the way of your unicorn sharpening method.
A good furniture starter is the nice little Chris Schwarz shaker table, which everybody else seems to have made. I've actually sold a few myself. It's a good exercise and being small doesn't risk spoiling much wood. You could do it entirely by hand, no prob. You can probably find the design on line - it started life as an article in his magazine, some years back.
Your wife's friends would probably buy one each!
PS here it is: https://www.popularwoodworking.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/HiRes-SEPT2004-Seg2.pdf
PPS and please don't bother replying to this with the usual 5 posts of 1000 words each.
Just do some woodwork and tell us (briefly) how you are getting on!
Looking forwards to the WIP!
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Phew! All quiet on the bloviator front!
If you are still reading this D_W I'd add that I thought your rip saw sharpening vid was good, except I prefer filing alternately - one side and then the other. Just for balance - the filing imparts a tiny bit of "set" though I don't suppose it'd make much difference with a rip saw.
And your cap iron demo is OK too. Hardly original but that's OK.
You obviously could do the work if you tried, instead of playing the fantasy guru; annoying, insulting and boring the RRs off everybody.
Hope that helps.
Last edited:
thetyreman
Established Member
Adam W.
A Major Clanger
Ttrees
Iroko loco!
I see some lovely furniture there Derek, but nice furniture doesn't answer the question,
of how thick of a shaving those premium bevel down double iron planes can take,
should someone be trying to decide whether to go to ebay or to buy a new ductile iron plane.
I see Daniel taking some smoothing shavings on a slab, of what looks to my eyes,
denser stuff than iroko, the shaving certainly suggests so.
I was looking to see this but with something bit less dense, perhaps spotted gum or some other stuff which one can dial it up a little and take some thicker shavings, rather than be restricted from the get go with such a dense species.
I believe this question to be of use to someone who cannot choose between,
and wants as little planes to care for as possible.
My last post which seems to have started quite a scuffle, should perhaps shown
a lesser dense example,
though I was trying to get across about the maximum for something dense,
where the no.5 1/2 shines, rather than something where one might say
a woodie would be more suitable for that.
I'd like to be put right on my query, as for a designer on paper....
very possible that the really really hefty double iron should come up trumps in
a test of heavy work compared to a thin Stanley/Record
To my eyes it looks like one can achieve heavier shavings with a double iron woodie, than a Bailey, but I've never seen this translate to the same thing in the premium planes.
Not much importance to me, needing that extra percentage for my reclaimed timbers
but for some who want the least amount of tools,
the question might have some merit.
Cheers
Tom
Thicker irons don't really translate to being able to take any more of anything in a typical plane, but they do feel like they're more solid. It's a transmission of feel rather than work done.
I encountered this with LV planes (one being the custom 5 1/2, as mentioned, which in beech- not pine - could not get as much work done for a pair of reasons as a what-should-be much less capable beech plane with an old butcher iron).
it is the case that you will get less in shaving thickness for same effort out of a metal plane, which is one of the bits of why the try plane was able to outwork a v11 equipped 5 1/2 - the plane itself is better designed (the try plane) for the work, and much less of the work that you do is turned into heat from handle rotation creating downforce on a metal plane. If you wax a metal plane, I would guess that the friction robs about 1/3rd of the efforts. If you don't wax it, more - and it clouds judgement about when a plane is getting dull.
There is a point where wood is nasty, pounds the iron because it's poorly sawn, etc, where the metal planes become necessary at least for comfort, but it's usually a signal that a better wood could've been chosen. It's one part hardness and one part workability. Hard maple and heart beech are about the same hardness, and beech is longer wearing on the surface, but the structure of it somehow is more favorable planing. Neither is hard to plane in thin shavings, but jack plane work and sawing favor beech - maybe more jack plane than sawing - beech saws fine, but it's not fast sawing compared to easy sawing woods like mahogany or walnut.
The easiest way to suss this stuff out is just to have one of each and measure the work you get done with them. There's no additional volume of work from LN or LV planes over a stanley, and no wood that a stanley can't handle that either of them can, but the fine fresh machining on the premium planes makes them higher in friction.
I wouldn't want to go without four planes - metal stanley smoother (a coffin smoother is OK, but it's hard on the elbows in hardwoods), wooden jack, wooden try plane, metal jointer. Deviating from those will lead to more work, but the metal jointer is nice to have when you have wood with a lot of runout and you'll not be taking a heavy shaving because of that, anyway.
LV sent me the plane to review - I think they would've been far better off copying stanley, but I relayed my preference to them. It was a nice gesture, but a burden to then have to test it in earnest and send it back given that it ended up not being something I'd want to keep. I sold it and donated the money.
Still think their effort isn't wasted, we're all dead if we don't try new things. It just isn't a better plane than a stock stanley, and in my view, due to a couple of design deviations, not as good.
FTR - I actually tested the things above. None of it is supposition. The result was to end up using tools that I didn't expect to use because when you're a rank beginner, something like an english try plane that may not be well fitted or may not even have the original parts can seem very difficult to get to even get basic function.
I think if one suffers through learning how the plane work and how they're fitted, it'll be useful more than just once, but I don't know how easy it is to fit a plane well if you're not making them.
I'd equate trying a few different planes to something similar to a power tooler trying a couple of different power routers with different bases or controls, or trying a few different table saw blades if there was something specific you want.
I guess it may be labeled as being fascinated with planes, but somehow trying several table saw blades to find one that you really like wouldn't be out of the ordinary.
I can generally get along with any router because use is sparse and I don't demand much from one. Same thing.
If you're going to work by hand, though, you have to figure out things like "should I get LN's mid sized/panel saws or an older disston" (definitely the latter, regardless of price), should I have 10 different sets of chisels from pigstickers to mini-butt and dovetail chisels in full sets or use one for nearly everything (the latter).
I think if one suffers through learning how the plane work and how they're fitted, it'll be useful more than just once, but I don't know how easy it is to fit a plane well if you're not making them.
I'd equate trying a few different planes to something similar to a power tooler trying a couple of different power routers with different bases or controls, or trying a few different table saw blades if there was something specific you want.
I guess it may be labeled as being fascinated with planes, but somehow trying several table saw blades to find one that you really like wouldn't be out of the ordinary.
I can generally get along with any router because use is sparse and I don't demand much from one. Same thing.
If you're going to work by hand, though, you have to figure out things like "should I get LN's mid sized/panel saws or an older disston" (definitely the latter, regardless of price), should I have 10 different sets of chisels from pigstickers to mini-butt and dovetail chisels in full sets or use one for nearly everything (the latter).
Similar threads
